The Kinks sure don't get much respect

[Davey.]

I've been listening to Arthur this morning and am once again, like always, amazed at how strong this album is. I mean, it would probably be in my top 20 of all time rock and roll list. Just one great song after another. Victoria is one of the best album openers of the rock era and Brainwashed should have been a massive hit. Australia, Shangri-La, Princess Marina. Almost non-stop goodness.

So I was wondering why I never see any Kinks on any of those critics best album lists? I popped over to the Aclaimed Music site at http://hem.bredband.net/acclaimedmusic/1948-02a.htm and there aren't even any Kinks in the top 200! So what gives? Where's the love?

Can any of you trivia buffs guess where the image below is from?

http://members.mailaka.net/davey/mysteryguy.gif

[Jim Clark]

Sorry, that's a big 'no go' on the picture.

It sometimes helps to remember that any chucklehead can make a list. I occasionally lurk at a site that currently is voting on a list of the "top 50 bands of the 20'th century" and the results are almost mind numbing. The good news is that the Kinks are on the list but well below:

Foo Fighters
Smashing Pumpkins
Van Halen
Rush
Queen
Red Hot Chili Peppers
and even Bob Dylan (not a Dylan slam but since when is Bob Dylan a band?)
and a whole host of others.

If they'd just follow my list everything would be OK.

jc

[Davey.]

It sometimes helps to remember that any chucklehead can make a list.
That's so true, but the reason I visited that site and posted the link is because it's compiled from hundreds of sources, not just one weirdo nerd with non-kinky taste in music. But I guess none of the Kinks albums rated very high on any of those many, many lists over the years.

[Stone]

But I guess none of the Kinks albums rated very high on any of those many, many lists over the years.

I don't understand it. I never have.

Nice avatar, by the way.

[mad rhetorik]

Kinks = totally and unfairly neglected band. They deserved to be as big as the Beatles, maybe even bigger. They rocked harder, Ray Davies wrote better and more relevant lyrics (compare any song lyrically on <b>Arthur</b> to some of the junk on <b>Sgt. Pepper</b>), and they didn't succumb to overproduction.

My favorite songs on <b>Arthur</b> are "Nothing To Say" (that swinging piano intro always gets me), "Shangri-La" (in the top 20 of best songs ever), and "She Bought A Hat Like Princess Marina" (with the hiliarious kazoo section).

BTW, your Kinks Kollection shouldn't end with <b>Arthur</b>. Check out <b>Village Green Preservation Society</b>, <b>Something Else By The Kinks</b>, and <b>Muswell Hillbillies</b> too.

[paper warrior]

Maybe sellling records to the pimply faced masses requires more of a sociological component than just the music itself. Maybe Janet Jackson halftime performance was a marketimg decision designed to propel her new album to the top of the pops.
The Kinks may be perceived as the sensitive '90s kinda lads of rock 'n roll gods. Maybe it's not just coincidence that the bad boys of rock the Rolling Stones are the survivors achieved the most commercial success of so called British Invasion besides the Beatles. Musically I know Jim Fusilli written some glowing reviews of the Stones in the WSJ. Though I recall Charlie Watts was promoting his jazz combo on NPR around 12 years ago now and let it slip out that 90% of what he played with the Rolling Stones was garbage though he backtracked when the interviewer pressed him with "wait a minute- did you say 90% is garbage?"
I'd say the Stones have at least one good album- their first from 1962- "England's Newest Hitmakers" when they were blues disciples though haven't really heard their later albums.

[jack70]

So I was wondering why I never see any Kinks on any of those critics best album lists?<br><br>
...But I guess none of the Kinks albums rated very high on any of those many, many lists over the years.
I don't understand it. I never have.


Kinks = totally and unfairly neglected band. They deserved to be as big as the Beatles, maybe even bigger.
I'm reading an old issue of Q magazine with the cover story of "The top-100 British Rock albums of all time". There's not one Kinks (or Who album either) on there! Pretty amazing, especially considering some of the second-rate derivative crap on the list.

Having said that, actually the Kinks are pretty highly regarded by those who are informed, and that's the problem... too many today haven't heard that much of the 60's music. Those younger listeners & reviewers that HAVE heard it don't appreciate the time & era and what different artists meant then. For example, not long after Arthur was released, it was picked as the top-album of the decade (60's) by writers of Fusion, a Boston-based zine like Rolling Stone, that I read for years. Lots of time & water under the bridge since then; most writers today haven't heard 90% of the rock music of the past 50 years... much of it's because it's just a physical impossibility.

The Kinks WERE better than the Beatles IMO, but they're my all-time fave band so I'm biased (there's quite a lot like me out here). But... the Beatles WERE more relevant when you consider their overall effect on pop-rock music. The Beatles were a major driving force that that helped evolve pop/rock music (& the culture too) in the late 60's more than any other time in pop history... that's simply a fact whether one likes them a lot... or just a little. Believe me, I've written some online criticism of the Beatles that's pretty harsh, yet they DO deserve their place at the head of the class, even if a lot of their appeal is from non-musical aspects (movies, celebrity-worship, media-overkill, etc). Even if I prefer the Kinks.